Posted on 04/06/2012 7:48:20 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Recently Beck has "described a bit about what Political System X" does, as well as gives some real world examples of how Political System X would manifest itself, what that would look like.
This is why I spend so much time on progressivism, and I really wish more bloggers would take progressivism seriously. Or, at least, be willing to dig into the progressives own history. Because many of you who automatically think 'communist' when the topic is progressivism, well, there's really no soft way to say this: You're wrong. Not all progressives are communists. Yes, you can cite Van Jones(and many others) as an example(s) of a communist; I cite Van Jones as a communist. He has admitted it. But they are largely not following the playbook of the communist manifesto with it's ten point list. This is what they're following - From Stuart Chase's book "The road we are traveling, 1914-1942: guide lines to America's future":
1. A strong, centralized government.
2. An Executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and jucicial arms. In some countries, power is consolidated in a dictator, issuing decrees.
3. The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.
4. The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.
5. The underwriting of social security by the government - old-age pensions, mothers' pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.
6. The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing these essentials. Other nations are far along the road.
7. The use of the deficit spending technique to finance these underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-time sanctity.
8. The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.
9. The control of foreign trade by the government, with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.
10. The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency
11. The control of energy sources - hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas.
12. The control of transportation - railway, highway, airway, waterway.
13. The control of agricultural production.
14. The control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.
15. The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC camps have just inaugurated military drill.
16. Heavy taxation, with especial emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
17. not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. it is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the management of great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.
18. State control of communications and propaganda.
Those of you who don't realize that Progressivism is it's own stand-alone "ism", will realize how closely this does look like the points in the communist manifesto. That doesn't make it communist. What it means is that there's only so many ways that you can be a dictator, there's only so many ways you can centrally plan society. There's bound to be some overlap. This is a great example of why I focus somewhat heavily upon Fabianism, because Fabians were always different than Marxists, yet so closely resemble progressives. And Stuart Chase was a Fabian. This is not just some unimportant historical figure. Stuart Chase coined the term "New Deal" and was a part of FDR's brainstrust. This is a heavy hitter in the history of progressivism.
Note how I bolded (17) and linked to a different blog posting. When I originally started feeling that I had enough information about progressivism to do this blog, I knew that it wasn't socialistic in the old sense, and Hise's book is exactly right in it's admission that it's not socialism, it's regulation. Now the end result looks virtually identical, absent the state ownership part, however. Ronald Reagan was right in his "A Time for Choosing" speech, 1964:
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property?
Socialism without state ownership; by the excessive use of regulation, is called progressivism. In their own words. We should call them by their name. It's changed, and has gone under changes in the past. The Marxian communists could hardly be called Owenites. Owenism had largely become outdated by that time. Now, it's regulation. Not socialism. They've progressed past state ownership. Yeah, they'll still do state ownership directly, but they've come to realize that they don't need it anymore. And this is what makes Cass Sunstein the most dangerous man in America. Because he does it all via regulation, instead of direct state ownership, you'll never see him coming. Why is Obamacare 2800+ pages? It's all social regulation, for the purpose of changing society. Fundamental transformation, to use Obama's words.
It looks like fascism to me.
My thread is this thread being put into, pardon the pun, ....progress.
We are in massive, massive trouble as a nation.
BTTT!
My thread is this thread being put into, pardon the pun, ....progress.
We are in massive, massive trouble as a nation.
BTTT!
“It looks like fascism to me.”
Yes, I see that too, but the Wikipedia definition of fascism is a lot more aggressive and warlike than the definition of “progressive” here. That could be because of the national Socialists- they were demonstrably aggressive and nationalistic.
I think the “progressives” are more one-world than they are “my country”.
We are moving toward a totalitarian government serving a privileged elite. Communist wealth redistribution to the masses is just demagoguery fed to supporters of the regime. Was Stalin really a communist or just a dictator using communist rhetoric as cover as he murdered his way to absolute power? The “proletariat” will eventually be very shocked with the state of their new bondage.
Thanks for posting. Good info.
It’s nothing new. Control without ownership == FASCISM.
Fascism is really just another form of socialism. It’s socialism by regulatory control. Some things may be nationalized but not everything. You can play favorites pretty well under fascism.
You are exactly correct. Unfortunately relatively few understand the history of that political system, and how it really operated, and think of it as a word used to smear conservatives that the American Left slings around.
Socialism is fascism with the goal of “progressing” towards Marxism. Your agrument is like saying the left is not the left. You are wrapped up in labels the left uses as they carry out “progressive” steps to reach the goal of communism. They put an “X” on it and you think it is something new. It is the same old carp.
You are wrapped up in labels the left uses as they carry out “progressive” steps to reach the goal of communism.
Respectfully disagree. In Progressive "brand X" politics, the left-right scale is simply a useful tool for advancing an entire series of carefully crafted social economic messages.
For the Progressive, it really doesn't matter which side of the playing field brings the ball across the authoritarian rule goal line. Progressives lust power.
Cheers,
OLA
Nice little graphic libertarians centered around themselves there. They left out the constitution.
The “authortian right” you refer to is fascism - socialism with Federal power over business. It is left like Marxism is left. You know what Marxism is. Both are authoritarian and limit private property.
On the other side you have constitutional liberals, aka, “classical” liberals and constitutional conservatives.
Libertarians are all over the place - from communist/anarchists to fascists to classical liberals to conservative constitutionalists. Many supported comrade Obama. Many support globalism which anything but constitutional.
Greetings SaraJohnson:
Great point. But this isn’t a “big L” libertarian issue simply because a handfull of Progressives have sized and redefined the “libertarian” word. Progressives also siezed and redefined the classical “liberal” and “gay” words for modern language use in its antonym form too.
Substitute the word “constitutionalist” for “libertarian” upon the graphic if you choose. The entire point of the post being the band of unjust Fabian Socialists dishonoring the constitutional conservative limitations of government power, because “only they know” what’s best for us. Meanwhile, us as sovereign individuals in our republic government are reduced to subjects.
Getting back to the chart. One can hardly argue that GH Bush, GW Bush, and wannabes R Dole, J McCain, or now W Romney are limited government conservatives. In fact, one can argue that every GOP President candidate since Reagan is big government progressive. Unfortunately, when contrasted against statists like Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama, the GOP are “relatively” conservative and liberty oriented.
Cheers,
OLA
Getting back to the chart. One can hardly argue that GH Bush, GW Bush, and wannabes R Dole, J McCain, or now W Romney are limited government conservatives.
Libertarians are not American-American constitutionalists. They are amoral, anti-ethical social Marxists who want to keep the money they steal w/o oversight and examination of the morality/honesty of their business behavior and practices. (Think, banksters.)
Frankly, many wealthy libertarians are psychopaths. They have all the power of money and range from a void in ethics to being downright dark and dangerous to human life and freedom. They often measure themselves not by the content of their character, but by the wealth they have accumlated and have contempt for those who they see as not as “smart” as themselves. The libertarian combination of anti-moral social Marxism and economic freedom is ugly to behold among the elite.
Greetings SaraJohnson:
Guess we agree there is a major difference between the constitutional conservative “small L” libertarians and the Fabians destroying the GOP we call RINOs and “large L” Libertarians?
Cheers,
OLA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.